> (Hey Chris)
>
> From what I know these comparisons are completely off the scope to the
> designers (setting and system). I'm not really sure what use they could be
> put to, outside of pub-style-discussions or the occasional in-game debate
> about who's heroquester would win in a celebrity death match (perhaps you
> can, in keeping with WoG topic scope, tell me how you think it's important
> to compare).
>
The main thing I would think is that it helps me tell stories. Often stories
that aren't in the published sources, which I need to do because the
published sources are thin on the ground, and besides which, they're full of
ideas about someone else's game not mine.
When the PCs find out that Broyan of the Volsaxi is going to be attacked by Beat Pot Alwin, is that a credible threat? Do they need to save him, or should they be heroquesting for deck chairs and pop corn?
One thing that occurs to me about the 'everything's relative' approach: Doesn't that mean that the end of level boss will always be approximately the same, regardless of whether they're a food trollkin or the Crimson Bat?
I agree, fwiw, that within a given narrative, we need to have challenges that match the characters and the setting, but I think this can be over done: It will probably work very nicely with the kind of rail roading scenarios RQ/HW/HQ1 has suffered from in the past (I don't need to list them do I?) but I don't think I'm alone in hating such things.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail